1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to apparatus to facilitate stabile image capturing from a moving and/or vibrating platform. It includes a frame assembly for supporting an image capturing device such as a still camera, or more particularly, a digital, video tape or film motion picture camera, and means for suspending the frame assembly with respect to a moving platform. More particularly, the present invention relates to an apparatus for stably supporting a portable video camera in or on a moving platform, such as a person or vehicle, to allow the steady taping of objects or scenes with respect to which the platform may be moving. The apparatus of the present invention is suited for recording from a wide variety of moving platforms, by way of example and not limitation, aircraft, water craft and ground craft such as airplanes, helicopters, hang gliders, balloons, boats, submarines, trains, cars, trucks, bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, surf boards, elevators, animals and people.
2. Description of the Related Art
It has heretofore been difficult to stabilize, portable video and motion picture cameras. Certain uses of these cameras have been particularly difficult such as recording or filming from moving platforms.
Many modern video and still cameras, for example, have built in electronic or optical stabilizers. These stabilizers are helpful when the camera is held relatively still, to capture, for example, a distant landscape. However, when camera movement is made that exceeds the ability of the built in stabilizer to correct, the result is a jumping effect as the stabilizer attempts to reestablish a reference. This problem is seen particularly often when shooting from platforms which may exhibit sudden gross movement such as rapid and or unpredictable changes of direction and/or orientation. Even though the jumping effect is less pronounced when using optical stabilizers as compared to electronic stabilizers, neither stabilizer provides sufficient stability without major additional physical stabilization.
Many products are currently marketed to provide external stabilization for camera operators. The most common devices are tripods. Tripods offer stability, but even with high cost fluid heads tripods are ineffectual when shooting from rapidly and/or unpredictably moving platforms because they transmit the motion and/or vibration of the platform to the camera. The legs of the tripod are also an impediment to the freedom of motion of the camera operator.
Gyroscopically stabilized platforms are available, but these are extremely expensive, and are usually confined to use by well established professional photographers. The are heavy, expensive and require considerable power. Typically they are mounted outside the platform in or on which the operator is located. When mounted exteriorly of aircraft special certification is required from the Federal Aviation Administration. They are inappropriate for hobby video or film work or purchase by professionals with limited financial resources.
One device, presently sold by Glidecam Industries of Plymouth, Mass. whose web address is http://www.glidecam.com, the Glidecam 2000 Pro (TM), uses a system of weights and balances to stabilize a handheld video camera. However, use of this device requires the camera operator to hand hold all the weight of the apparatus and camera in front of himself, and thus causes significant fatigue in the operator. In addition, the camera operator cannot use the camera's view finder, but must look directly at the object. This apparatus is limited to use with cameras weighing only up to six pounds. A accessory for use with this product, the Glidecam Body-Pod (TM) provides a post that nests in a pocket on a camera operator's belt. This belt assembly could support a considerable amount of weight, and might otherwise be useful, but still does not provide sufficient stability for all uses and requires that the operator's hands be on the camera at all times. Other models have increased weight carrying capacity but suffer from the same drawbacks. Their most sophisticated frame assembly, the Glidecam V-20 and its associated accessories per ports to allow you to “shoot from moving vehicles and travel over uneven terrain without camera instability or shake” but lacks gyroscopic stabilization and is extremely expensive.
Another device, The Pro Camcorder Shoulder Rest, is sold by Video Innovators, of Frisco, Colo. whose web address is http://www.videoinnovators.com. This device is a hand-held mounting bar on which a camera is mounted. At the end of the device in front of the camera operator is a handle pointing downward, which the camera operator grips to stabilize the camera and support most of its weight. At the shoulder, the rest is curved and padded in order to rest comfortably on the camera operator's shoulder. In spite of claims to the contrary, when a camera is mounted on one of the rests, it is not positioned so that the camera operator can comfortably look into the viewfinder. While shifting some of the camera's weight to the operator's shoulder may be of assistance, the entire unit is unstable to tilting, i.e., the camera can be easily tilted causing extreme instability in the resulting video footage. Their The Vehicle Camera Dash Mount is inexpensive and they do aver that it “makes taking your pictures with your camcoder (sic) smooth and easy while traveling at highway speeds,” but does not appear to have any mechanism to isolate vibration or compensate for rapid and/or extreme shifts in position or orientation of the car, and appears to work only in cars and only if they have a windshield.
A portable camera assembly having a shoulder rest, a hand grip and a camera mount is also disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,963,904 to Lee. A gun stock camera rest, is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 2,806,416 to Jones. A support for photographic cameras with shoulder straps, a belt and various support and cross bars is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 2,552,205 to Moss. However, these devices all have the disadvantages of the Camcorder Shoulder Rest, discussed above.
Monopods have also been used in the past, and can provide some stability when grasped about 12″ below the body of the camera. One such monopod is disclosed in the Jones patent, cited above. Nonetheless, the stability obtained with monopods is still not acceptable.
Various types of shoulder harnesses for supporting cameras have been proposed in the prior art, but none provide a stable, inexpensive and versatile solution to supporting a portable video camera. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,746,369 to Beard et al., discloses a shoulder camera mount with pistol grips for supporting telephoto and long focus lenses. The patent discloses, for example, that the weight of the “camera gun” is so distributed that the center of gravity thereof at elevated positions is substantially disposed to fall along a line through the shoulders and torso of the operator. However, it is clear that at normal elevations, or at angles below the horizontal, a great deal of the weight of a telephoto lens for example, would be placed in the hands of a user, causing eventual fatigue. No means for adjusting the center of gravity of the assembly, for example, is provided.
A camera support is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,332,593 to Fauser, in which “body-engaging tubular members” and “body-engaging” rollers attach the support to the body. Similar shoulder harness supports are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,073,788 to Lingwall, U.S. Pat. No. 4,526,308 to Dovey, U.S. Pat. No. 2,873,645 to Horton, and U.S. Pat. No. 2,636,822 to Anderson. These devices have, among others, the disadvantage of being unable to move independently of the body of the operator.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,945,428 to Dearborn discloses a camera stabilizer with a tubular frame, a camera mounting portion and balancing masses disposed on opposite sides of the apparatus. However, the frame is specifically intended not to be rested on the shoulders of the operator. The entire weight is supported by the users arms, or, in other disclosed embodiments, a combination of the users arms and a monopod or belt harness, so that use of this device would lead to unnecessary fatigue.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,056,449 to Hart discloses a camera stabilizer with a frame which rests on the shoulders of an operator, in which the camera is mounted on a portion the frame in front of the operator and a counterweight, which may also be a gyroscope mechanism, is mounted to the frame behind the operator. This arrangement is not suitable, and may even be dangerous, when the operator is located in or on a moving platform or in a crowd. The necessarily large front to rear dimensions of the frame render it unsuitable for use within the confines of a small airplane or helicopter, passenger automobile and the like. The addition of the weight of the apparatus on the upper torso of the operator, especially when combined with the effects of the gyro can easily cause the operator to loose his/her balance when standing in or on most movable platforms such as airplanes, helicopters and boats which are subject to rapid and large shifts of position and orientation. The relatively long extension of the frame behind the operator and out of his field of view can cause it to strike bystanders as the operator moves about.
Tyler Camera Systems of Van Nuys, Calif., whose web address is www.tylermount.com, offers a number of camera mount systems that provide excellent stability when used in helicopters and other vehicles. Their systems are mostly rented, must be insured for hundreds of thousands of dollars and are economically out of the range of most photographers. Their Middle Mount II and Major mount systems are counterbalanced boom type assemblies pivoted to upright supports mounted on bases. Some models have optional “gyro assist”. Their nose mount and ball mount systems are externally mounted to the helicopter and differ substantially from the present invention.